disgusting from the outset, this is fast approaching lunacy.

Qur'an burning would increase risk of terror attacks ? Interpol | World news | guardian.co.uk


terry jones is playing kim jong il.

how is this now any different from yelling fire in a crowded theater?

I can only imagine what the conspiracy theorists will say if he calls it off after announcing that he was contacted by a government official.

I like how he put the onus on them. Now he has an excuse if something bad happens. He can just say he invited the government to advise him to do otherwise and they didn't. And if the government does advise him to cancel, he'll have more ammunition for his cause. He will be able to say how the government not only does too little to stop the Muslim takeover of America, but they impede his own initiatives to do something.

Nice.

I think it is ironic that many Christians are saying "this guy doesn't represent us he is just some crazy guy" but at the same time many of those same people are saying "Muslims attacked us on 9/11".

Both are a case of crazy people doing stupid shit. I really hope this guy does not go through with this though I do wish that a few more Christian leaders would denounce the burnings much more forcefully.

Here is the response to the event by the Islamic Center of Gainesville, Florida:

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u...p/dop_fr-1.jpghttp://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u...tfp/dop_bk.jpg

Islamic Center of Gainesville | Islamic Center Of Gainesville, Florida

This must be the work of the devil!

...and they're protesting the building of a Muslim cultural center in Manhattan?

I think its still beyond lunacy that people are giving paying these idiots any mind at all (I don't mean discussions like this one). We have to keep whats going on here in perspective. A group of backwards, small minded people who essentially, as best I can tell, are just trying to get attention...and what do we do? Give it to them to them by the truck load. The simple fact of the matter is you can't control what everybody does all the time and in this world people are going to do grossly offensive and stupid things to make a point. We can collectively pull out hair out and fight it or turn our back to this kind of stupidity and give it the attention it deserves. None.

Why is everybody, world over, going out of their way to validate these people? Its like trying to put out a stupid fire by spraying it with liquid stupid.

I anticipate a torrent of ad hominem attacks here, (how could anything good come out of that airhead?) but I think that the much maligned Ms. Palin really hits the nail on the head here. Many of us tend to force through our rights without regard to the consequences or for the feelings of others. Do we not all have a responsibility to consider the potential consequences of asserting our rights? Book burners and mosque builders alike.
Isn't this akin to selfishly forcing our "right of way" on the road, thereby causing an accident?

Lindy

I'm borrowing Hired Gun's words here:

"Here is what I find ironic:

Cordoba House is not really a mosque. It includes a prayer space, yes, but it's primarily a cultural center - and not even an exclusively Muslim cultural center. Take a look at their mission statement:

Quote:
Cordoba House is a Muslim-led project which will build a world-class facility that promotes tolerance, reflecting the rich diversity of New York City. The center will be community-driven, serving as a platform for inter-community gatherings and cooperation at all levels, providing a space for all New Yorkers to enjoy.

This proposed project is about promoting integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion through arts and culture. Cordoba House will provide a place where individuals, regardless of their backgrounds, will find a center of learning, art and culture; and most importantly, a center guided by Islamic values in their truest form - compassion, generosity, and respect for all.

The site will contain tremendous amounts of resources that otherwise would not exist in Lower Manhattan; a 500-seat auditorium, swimming pool, art exhibition spaces, bookstores, restaurants - all these services would form a cultural nexus for a region of New York City that, as it continues to grow, requires the sort of hub that Cordoba House will provide.
The entire Cordoba initiative seems to me to be exactly what the shrillest commentators have spent the last nine years claiming does not exist: a Muslim constituency genuinely and publicly devoted to tolerance and interfaith understanding.

So the choice of Lower Manhattan is meaningful; the whole point is to juxtapose a monument to understanding in the shadow of a scar of hatred and war.

Also, it's really not at ground zero, but a few blocks away on Park Place.

I think political opposition to this project is the cheapest, basest form of grandstanding, and I genuinely hope that the truth of the matter wins the day and calms the hearts of those who are sincerely upset."



Read more: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...#ixzz0z401uoc3

Ms. Palin is not hitting any head of any nail, unless thumbs count.

Her feeble odious attempts at likening the two groups of people she is talking about:
Is sickening.

so as ring said, and as is the case empirically, there is no "ground zero mosque."
what's interesting about palin's remark is that she's trying rhetorically to distance the neo-fascist right from these gainesville zanies. presumably everyone who either opposes or endangers the neo-fascists are identical for her. and that's about all that's interesting.

the clause about having the formal right to burn books and it being tasteless is a simple recapitulation of what everyone's said about this except maybe for the members of terry jones' cult and immediate family.

Agreed.

Not entirely true. Burning books is a symbolic act not topped by much else, if anything. Anyone who burns a religious book in a time of high tension with that religion is bound to get good media coverage, which has happened.

So the news breaking...like right this second is that the Pastor won't be burning the Quran on Saturday...

...no articles yet, CNN is saying he instead is going to fly to New York and talk to an Imam.

what a wuss.

It's actually a bit surprising to me, especially after seeing the photo/video footage of him with Braveheart images/soundtrack and torso-shaped targets (or whatever they're called) as decoration on his walls.

this of course was met with immediate denials from the people associated with the ground zero center and maybe I should tighten my tin foil hat, but his decision came very shortly after a meeting with the FBI. I'm sure they didn't threaten him with anything and just made a heartfelt appeal to him.

He was probably repressed not unlike how King Arthur repressed Dennis.

because the US Government would never threaten an american citizen for simply exercising their constitutional rights, right?

What would they threaten him with? A disappearance? An "accident"?

are you serious? have you not been paying attention to all the new homeland security laws since 9/11/01? do you REALLY need to have all this explained to you in great detail? or are you simply being obtuse?

So they'd threaten him...with a law?

I'm not trying to be obtuse; it's just that you're being vague.

Your tin foil hat is showing, remember?

the federal government has unlimited resources, and whether or not the church and pastor may be doing something within the constitution, the FBI can, and most likely would, charge him with some innocuous crime which would completely bankrupt him and the church. A jury trial, despite a completely constitutionally protected action, would convict him because people are emotional retards.

Hey, what's the news now? He's rethinking his rethinking of the book burning?

I guess they have just as much freedom to burn the Koran as the mosque-builders have to build a mosque. The fact is that what the radicals most fear is our freedom of worship and of expression, even of unpopular ideas. And if you think about it, it's the unpopular ones that need protecting, isn't it?

I saw this question earlier, shortly before I had to leave for work and now I come back to the discussion somewhat nullified by the cancellation of the event. I would like to answer anyway.

The difference is, when someone yells fire in a crowded theater, people are going to get hurt because of the ensuing panic and rush toward the exits - a reasonable and rational action(under the circumstances).

It is (or should be) under any circumstances unacceptable to harm or kill another person because they offended you or your religion. Period. This bullshit where you threaten, beat and kill those who disagree with you is tyranny incarnate and should not be tolerated.

There's a lot of fail in this thread that I wish I could respond to but I don't have the energy to do so. Instead, I think I'll just pick one small issue near and dear to me...

I am continually shocked by how little Europeans value freedom. For example, I'm pretty sure I hate Islam more than anybody on this forum yet few Europeans seem to be as offended by anti-burqa laws as I am. This really troubles me...

Strange Famous, just in case you're not aware of them, there are so many limits to freedom of speech, even in the United States, that it's not even funny. Here are just a couple off the top of my head:

• Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre
• Copyright
• Obscenity
• Slander and Libel

I'm sure the list could go on and on. However, there is a very firm bound that should never be crossed and that's offense. A government should never be allowed to limit ones freedom of speech because of mere offense! I think it's just disgraceful how many countries in the West have blasphemy laws, some of them even newly enacted!

I'm pretty sure anyone here who recognizes my username knows that I'm a fervent atheist. The things I have to say about religion(s) are very offensive to a great many people. Many of them would like to see me forcibly silenced. I am fortunate enough to, by sheer happenstance of birth, live in a part of the world that allows me the freedom to speak my mind to whomever will listen. I cannot be who I am and call for a censoring of these Christians (and yes, they are Christians) without being a hypocrite. I therefore fully support their right to burn the Qur'an in protest... and I hate Christianity! I'm pretty sure I hate Christianity more than anyone else on this forum...

Strange Famous, and anyone who agrees with his views on freedom of speech, can you justify stifling me because what I have to say is offensive? Is there anything substantive that distinguishes me from Terry Jones?

Finally, please understand that my support for their right to burn a Qur'an is distinct from my support for actually burning one. I think it will be counter-productive to do so...

Brilliant! Thanks for the levity.:thumbsup:

Nice picture, Lucifer. Simple way the economy works: you buy it, they will make more!

But let's not get carried away with how it will affect the economy. The net effect is what we could call the Burnt Koran Fallacy.

No....actually, no. It should be fine because the people doing the burning are doing the buying, right?

Funny you should bring that up. It's a pity that the little boys in this story are not having accidents.

a little recap on the activities of this repellent little man and his repellent little church:

On Faith Panelists Blog: The notorious Pastor Terry Jones - Sally Quinn

This is the price we pay for having freedom of religion and freedom of speech. On occasion, complete assholes will take the opportunity to be complete assholes. I'd still not trade freedom of speech or religion for anything, even a Klondike Bar.

Interesting. I assume they're doing the buying, which would be hurting the book burner's cause more than helping. The book stores and publishers don't care what you do with the book; you buy it, you can do what you want with it. They're just giving them more money to keep churning Korans out.

If the church really wanted to hurt Islam, they would break into Muslim houses and steal the Koran or steal it from book stores. But these people don't do illegal things, only immoral ones.

BAH!

i give no fucks, i'm blind to see why anyone gives a fuck. fuck religion, fuck the stupid bullshit that originated from it, fuck the quran, fuck the bible, and fuck the fucking press.

...i'm pretty fed up with this stupid bullshit

Woah, calm it down over there, bud.

I've thought about what you said many times before, and it sounds like a good idea at first to not give a shit. "If no one gave a shit, wouldn't life be grand?" The fact is, it wouldn't. If we all said what you said there'd be no change or good. Apathy is a cancer and disease. Apathy is possibly the worst state of mind someone can be in. As the Flobots said, "don't let apathy police the populace."

I know you're pissed and the feelings will soon pass. We've all said "fuck this" when we get tired of stupid shit. I was feeling an anti-apathy flow, had to get it out there.

Meh I kind of get that way too Pearl. I'd like to give a fuck more often but holy hell does it get hard sometimes. The burning of the Qurans...I don't know, what are you going to do about it? The sad fact of the matter is that bullshit ignorance is everywhere you look, I haven't been to one stinking corner of this country and not met people just like our friend that pastor. It just permeates every last aspect of our lives and you can't even avoid it if you want to. So what do we have? A bunch of bigots sitting around in a field doing one of the most offensive things I can think of and for what? Because they think its something important that they have to do...there isn't much you can do to change that kind of thinking especially when it comes from some sacred book they've probably (actually I'm sure of it) been misinterpreting for years anyway.

Sometimes I just have to say fuck it, I have a life to live and life is just too damn short to worry about every small minded bigot with an axe to grind. I feel like if people want to waste their lives festering under ignorance and hatred then I say let them and the less people who pay it any mind the better off we'd probably all be. The truth is the older I get the more numb I become to it.

i think this cretin gasbag poses an interesting problem of limits to freedom of speech. the communications environment in which we now operate allows cretin gasbag statements and actions to have repercussions that far outstrip the scale of the cretin gasbags themselves. it's happened that making cretin gasbag noises about burning a koran sparked demonstrations in afghanistan in which people were killed. those noises prompted a warning from interpol about "terrorism"---though you kinda have to wonder in this case who the "terrorist" is. but perhaps if a cretin gasbag is enough of one--and white---such questions do not arise.

cretin gasbags in florida stage allegories of allegorical actions that come to stand in for aspects of ongoing united states policy....the "war on terror" and the racist marketing staged for it under the bush regime and its continuing role in neo-fascist identity politics...the united states can easily be seen as waging an informal war against an entire religion because cretin gasbags can access global communication networks and get their cretin viewpoints out into the world.

are the political consequences of this sort of thing internationally such that limitations on ultra-rightwing speech should be fashioned?
is racism protected speech?
how is this cretin gasbag not arrested for a hate crime? how is this not one?

the question of shouting fire in a crowded theater is not so easy to dismiss. if the interpol warning is taken at all seriously, the cretins in florida were attempting to incite a riot, to incite violence by committing symbolic violence. they endangered others. this endangering is the place where the analogy kicks in.

personally, i would have hoped that jones and his tiny cadre of ultra-rightwing christian zealots would find themselves arrested had they tried to go forward.
i don't see this as a freedom of speech issue. this is incitement. and it is a hate crime.

Why isn't Jones worried that he will be one of the first killed?
or is he?

if that were the case, then I'd buy and burn 100 of them, try to arrest me and its kill or be killed.

DK, your statement confuses me.

What are you saying exactly? That our laws against incitement & hate crimes
shouldn't exist?
Where do you draw the freedom of speech line?

the laws against incitement REQUIRE that a 'reasonable' person would react violently. burning a book, even if it were the last copy known of any volume, should NEVER elicit a violent response from REASONABLE people. Reacting violently to something like that marks you as completely unreasonable, illogical, and irrational.

It's not ME that drew the line of freedom of speech, talk to your supreme court justices who said the same thing about burning an american flag.

'Reasonable' sounds vague & fuzzy.
"Try to arrest me and kill or be killed," is very clear.

I'm short on time. Errands to run,
I'll get back to this later.

so are you saying that you woulda been out there burning with these people, dk?
or is this just another situation in which you imagine yourself going all ruby ridge against the Man?

as it stands legally now, no. I personally don't find the burning something that I would do, however, if society were to follow suit as you believe it to be, and it were considered a hate crime because it offends a certain group, then all stops are gone and it would not be ruby ridge, but north hollywood shootout.

(
 

(wow)

If I've understood dksuddeth in this thread, the answer to both of those questions is emphatically no. He has called the act stupid, & I think even such vehement defense of the Constitution MUST be construed as FOR the Man.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, dk. Quite frankly, I admire your strong conviction.:thumbsup:

kind of re: the thread: I was at the library browsing the koran translations, & there among them was a book called "A God That Hates," by Wafa Sultan, a Syrian woman who slams Islam using much the same blatant generalities as the most ardently prejudiced who traditionally speak it. It's fascinating. But my point is, (tic), I thought it was EXTREMELY INSENSITIVE to have them so intermingled on the shelf.

it simply goes back to the belief of supporting the first amendment. I may not like what you have to say, but just because I may not like it doesn't mean i'm going to let somebody deny you your right to it.

cant we all just be free and hate whatever the fuck we want to?

hate all you want, just don't commit violent or oppressive acts because you hate certain people/groups.

dk. I'm curious what type of acts you would consider to be hate crimes.

I'm also curious as to why the the 'I would' was left out of your earlier statement: "kill or be killed."

for whatever it's worth, i was just asking for clarification. i dont think people are free to be as bigoted and stupid as they want. freedom of speech is not about freedom from being criticized or freedom from being stopped---freedom of speech is about limits on the kind of legal actions the federal government can undertake to stop speech acts. but that doesn't mean that pressure can't be brought to bear to stop an action. this pressure can be direct, blunt violent if need be. and folk like dk couldn't object to it because the state hadn't done it, even if they supported the type of speech/action that was being halted.

but even legally back in the Halcyon Days When the Mighty Founders Strode the earth there were attempts to circumscribe speech (alien & sedition act anyone?).

but here, you've got good old fashioned fascist america speech. as ignorant and vile as it gets. like i said, i don't see this as a speech issue primarily--i see it as incitement to violence. and i am glad that it was called off. had jones gone ahead with it, i would have supported its total suppression. and i would have care little about how it happened. i think the political and ethical damage entailed by creating an image of the united states in the context of which this sort of vile action is ok outweighs problems of free speech.

but i also recognize that the situation is complicated and alot of my position comes more from finding these racist fuckwits to be viscerally offensive. so i would like personally to be part of forcing them to stop. but legally, it's sticky. i'm glad that things happened as they happened.

Yes, it's complicated. I cannot fathom how anyone could not see this pastor's
actions as anything other than incitement.
& I think that's where the pressure came from to 'shush' him.
From many many others who are far far more reasonable.

I'm glad too.

it's not so violent. it hurts no-one, and it's not like we're going to run out of korans anytime soon. burning a book is stupid and accomplish's nothing, we all know this. this is basically "shock rock" of the religious world. they want recognition and they're obtaining it.

i just dont care. this will probably be my last post on this thread.

edit: i still believe in freedom. i think ill burn a koran, a bible, the origin of species, and where the wild things are in a bundle sometime soon.

anything where actual physical harm happens is a hate crime, and take that from someone who thinks it's absolutely ridiculous to have 'hate crimes', because crime is crime.

I simply assumed that when I said "try to arrest me and its kill or be killed." was self explanatory.

I'm glad that the good pastor decided against this action.

I'm also glad to see the 9-11 lights burning brightly in the night sky.

why don't you support the 1st Amendment?

why don't you read?

I read plenty RB, tell us, do you think burning a US flag is protected by the 1st amendment?

back again. (not RB, however)

who gives a fuck. if i feel like burning a flag the fucker will burn. again, this hurts no-one.

good day.

I was wondering about this myself, actually I was curious about burning a bible, but I'll ask it in what I think is a more direct way.

RB, does the reaction of those meant to be offended by the issue that tips the scale in favor of suppression of certain speech; If those offended were more apt to shrug it off than to react violently would you still be in favor of suppression?

This is dangerous logic. Incitement is when you incite your FOLLOWERS to violence. If your ENEMIES react to your actions with violence that is not incitement. Was Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard guilty of incitement for drawing a likeness of the Prophet?

Would you call Martin Luther King, Jr. guilty of incitement because Sheriff Bull Connor and the white citizens of Alabama reacted violently to King's demonstrations in 1963? Did MLK's using his right of free speech incite his own assassination? Your logic heads right down that street.

And no, I am not equating Rev. Nitwit Terry Jones with MLK.:no: I am saying that we should look at this legal principle (incitement) for what it is, not just as a way to punish the actions of those we hate. Rev. Jones and his followers are no more representative Christians than the 9/11 terrorists are representative Muslims.

Sure, let's judge what should or should not be protected speech based on the international political consequences. After all, we're only limiting ultra-rightwing asshats. They're such an embarrassment. Don't they just deserve it? They're nothing but a bunch of ultra-rightwing christian zealots anyway.
Then we can start to move the definition of "ultra-rightwing" a little bit to the left. And then a little more. And a little more...
Eventually anyone to the right of Vladimir Ilyich could be considered "ultra right-wing." And we could "fashion limitations" on their speech too. Just like in that Marxist workers' paradise Russia in the 1920s. And the 1930s. 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, etc.:thumbsup:
Let's arrest them and send nitwit Jones and all the rest of the Jews:paranoid: --I mean ultra-rightwing christian zealots:)-- to a nice reeducation camp. Send them away so they are not around to cause us embarrassment or unwanted political consequences. Keep them there for a good long time.

Lindy
First they came for the ultra-rightwing christian zealots and I did not speak out because I was not...:shakehead:

.

great lindy. so first i get a facile slippery slope argument and in the second i am given to understand that if you oppose fascist speech you're pol pot.

fine job.

how about you try again.

Did the planned "attention-grabbing" stunt even happen? Last I heard (Friday) the entire thing was cancelled, and the faux-church is now looking for a way to sell (used) Qu'rans they bought a week before. Lot of publicity and up-in-arm'ing for not a whole lot of anything that wasn't stupid / obviously vainglorious in the first place.

Terry Jones, with his cunty handlebar mustache, said they would not burn it today or any time in the future.

Full of shit the whole time.

you still haven't explained how burning a quran is fascist speech but burning a flag is free speech.

i regard burning a quran in this political context as a bit of neo-fascist agit-prop.
i've been pretty clear about the frameworks within which it's status as protected speech is a problem. i've also been clear about the fact that i regard this as a complicated problem, negociating between protected political speech and incitement or the actions like yelling fire in a crowded theater.


so i'm not interested in your metaphysical "how is fish like wombat?" question.

sorry.

I'd like to see proof that he even bought 100.

(and how much do they cost?)

I'm sorry as well, for the only thing I'm left to regard is that you're ridiculous comparison is total hypocrisy, that only in YOUR mind can burning one symbol be unprotected hate speech while the burning of another symbol, despite the potentiality for violent response, isn't incitement at all, but should be considered irrational responses to protected free speech.

that's because you refuse to understand what i'm saying, dk.
and you act as though my posts were statements of solid conviction the way yours are, when the fact of the matter is that there's alot of problems with every aspect of this burning thing.

i even included more than once comments about the complexity i was thinking my way through personally as i wrote some of the posts here that was generated because my personal and political revulsion (vis-a-vis these 20 cretins in gainesville) ran me over concerns about freedom of speech i otherwise take account of.

i think this happens to everyone, one way or another, in one context or another. it certainly happens to you when either of your strict construction hobby horses comes up. at least i acknowledge it. you tend to pretend the world is as you want to see it as being.

um, guys? I'm firmly convinced (deluded) that we all agree:

The threatened action was a bad idea.
The media hoopla was the major cause of this media event.
The issues involve two things it's impossible to converse politely about.

There's no reason to be rude.

The crux burning here, to me, is that inarguables are constructed internally & our ability to listen to others when they disagree is a valuable skill leading to an increased understanding. Neither the preacher nor the muslims who rioted elsewhere possess it. But I believe we do.

roach, simply put, you're full of it. there is no difference. NONE. no matter how you try to explain it or differentiate it, you're full of it. your colors are showing.

if i thought the matter were so simple i wouldn't have wasted my time writing what i wrote.
i think your viewpoint simplistic.
if you want a debate, try another tack.
if not, i have plenty of other things to do. i'm a busy boy.

I drove past all this yesterday.
It was hoopla. I didn't want to, but I was listening to the stupid TomTom lady.
There were people everywhere.
And a gun checkpoint to get into where the media people were.
We just ended up pissed that it took us longer to get out out of Gainesville.
This was at about 5:45 pm.
It was stupid.
People yelling at each other and making a scene.

OK, I'll try again.:) This is not rocket science. It is neither facile or slippery. You fail to understand the simple distinction between a provocation (which this is) and an incitement (which this is not.)
MLK's actions in the sixties were a provocation, intended to provoke an overreaction by his opponents. It worked just as he planned. But they were not an incitement. Nothing slippery about that. Simple historical fact.
Hitler's speeches excoriating the Jews in the 1930s were an incitement, because they drove his followers, not his opponents.

If you want to oppose fascist speech by throwing the fascists in the slammer, not for what they do, but for what they think, what they say, or who they are, yes, you are pol pot.

Yeah, let's get our own bully-boys out to bust up the other guy's get togethers. Worked for the Nazis in the early 1930s. Do we really want that to get started here? By the way, I think we'd all really like to know just what exactly you mean by "total suppression?"

roachboy, you are blinded by your own hate.

Lindy
First they came for the ultra-rightwing christian zealots and I did not speak out because I was not...:shakehead:

well, i shall certainly undertake a period of profound soul-searching. knowing that my posts can be chopped up and presented to look as though i am saying things i'm not saying...gee, what thinking person wouldn't retreat to the mountain?


first the distinction incitement/provocation--yes there is this distinction. given the interpol announcement of last wednesday that jones' action would have prompted more "terrorist" attacks on the united states, going forward would seem to me to move out of the space of protected speech and into that of public safety.
but i thought it more fun to push at incitement because for the argument to work, you'd have to position terry jones as a "terrorist".
which would mean that you'd have to be thinking rather than being merely pedantic.
good luck with that.



second, because of the public safety concerns, i would have expected legal action would have been taken and that ultimately it would have turned into a legal battle that would have been really problematic and would in all likelihood have turned terry jones into some right-wing martyr of free speech if the ultra-right political estabishment could stomach making a martyr out of a racist who doesnt try to pretend he isnt one.

and i was aware of the tensions within my own position on that. but to know that you'd have had to move beyond cherry-picking. but that's not how you roll.



third, as for the facile conclusion that i am "blinded by my own hate" i would say that given the way you butchered my positions that you doth protest too much.

and context matters. for the posts to make sense, context matters. but butchering is so easy.

your "position"" appears to be that it's a problem to suppress fascism because it deprives fascists of the "right" to be fascist.

so i have a problem with racism.
ooo that must make me a bad person.

so i have a problem with fascism.
oooo that must make me a bad person.

i feel just terrible about that.

and i assume that you as a racist and a fascist will sleep better now knowing that your speech rights are no longer threatened by posts from pol pot on a message board.

any idiot can play this game, lindy dear.

rb -

I don't think the Interpol warning can be used in your argument, and here's why: it forces one to accept that people willing to blow up U.S. interests are waiting for a reason to do so - and that one wacko preacher burning a Koran is what will set them over the edge.

I believe anyone willing to blow up U.S. interests already have enough reasons and are simply working through the logistics in order to make that happen.

Therefore, this is no more of an incitement fear than U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan or Britney and Madonna kissing in lingerie on T.V.

I'll give you that it may have caused people to protest and those protests may escalate to rioting, rioting to the burning of U.S. interests. But incitement to "terrorism" seems a stretch.

Another observation: typically, there is a group of like-minded people on this board who rally together and post in support of a position. That group does not seem to exist surrounding the position you've taken. I'm not picking a fight, I just find that curious.

^^This idiot can't. Sniping at each other in reaction to each other's thoughtless sniping has some similarity to burning & rioting. Speaking your mind is supposed to be less actionable.

cimmaron--for what it's worth i actually in meat-space struggled a bit with this question, trying to find a way to balance my visceral revulsion over what these people wanted to do against free speech considerations. and i'm not sure i found a balance. but i'm ok with that---it's part of a process of trying to figure out a position.

the ambient conditions that made the question difficult are easy to name but hard to imagine doing anything about at an individual level: that the populist right since the end of the bush period has shifted into what i regard, and can argue for as being, neo-fascism and that this shift has gone largely unnamed in the dominant ideological system. i see this as a Problem, and a particularly american problem. if you look at comparable movements in western europe, like the french front national, you find that they're named for what they are and that this naming presents real problems for the parties getting traction. front national candidates have only once got more than 5% in a national election and that moment prompted a significant political backlash. i fail to understand why it is that the **same** ideology (with "american" substituted for "french") passes as mainstream conservatism in the states.

i attribute this to the passivity of the center/left and to the effects of far too long a period of conservative ascendancy. the right has managed to shift popular notions of "balance" into a space that naming what the populist right is can be taken as a abrogation of their prerogatives.

i see this as dangerous. and i don't believe the united states system is self-correcting. i would point to two terms of george w. bush and the war in iraq as proof.

second: the particular action terry jones proposed i found deeply, personally offensive. i found it offensive in itself and doubly so in the context of yet another mounting wave of conservative-inspired anti-muslim sentiment. this affects people i love directly. it is hard to treat this as some abstract Problem and play what i regard as stupid high-school debate team games around this issue for that reason.

i keep hoping that people will snap out of some stupor and reject the legitimacy of such actions and do something to prevent them---truth be told although i would have had little problem with a group breaking up the jones' action forcibly, i would have preferred to have seen massive counter-demonstrations that ringed it around and showed its marginality and that this sort of thing is simply unacceptable politically and ethically, and done so in a peaceful manner.

and i would have expected that fox news would show footage cut in a way parallel to how leni reifenstahl cut the crowd sequences in "triumph of the will" to produce the opposite effect.

so this was a difficult issue for me as a human being.
it's because it's difficult that i don't feel inclined to indulge stupid counters and cheap red-baiting as a response.
or maybe i'm just getting sick of debating politics here.
i haven't figured that out quite yet.

====

addendum:
riots in kashmir left 13 dead because of these people.
demonstrations in afghanistan left 3 dead.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...lled-quran-row

but i guess folk are ok with that. after all, its important that american neo-fascists are free to be as foul as they want to be. and besides, the dead are just crazy brown people far away. so who cares?

rb-

I share a similar personal reaction to Jones' actions. I also feel an urgency of "Somebody - ANYBODY - do something to keep this from being the face of America that Islam sees!" Especially, when this is definitely not the face of America. I also must concede that these actions almost universally fall at the feet of conservatives. Love thy neighbor be damned.

I think most of the anger I feel regarding this event is the media coverage. Stupid people do stupid symbolic things in this country all the time. Why the media picks this up and runs with it 24/7 (I'm talking to you Foxnews) just shows "there's good money in controversy," regardless of the damage it causes. One small man doing one small act is undeserving of this exposure.

I really want this guy's congregation, his neighbors, family, or his regional society to squash this. In my fantasy solution, I see him lighting the lighter and everyone in the crowd throwing a water balloon at him - something which exposes the ridiculous act he proposes with an equally ridiculous act....turning his twisted carnival-show behavior into a universal response of STFU through humiliation.

Where I get nervous is if the "anybody" discouraging his speech is a government entity. You and I will agree we have different levels of trust in our government, and while I would like to trust them to suppress stuff like this and still let you and me rally/protest other things - it feels like a pandora's box. To bolster your case, I would probably point to the evidence of the Dutch cartoonist. In that event there seems to be evidence to support incitement, especially since this pastor is capable of seeing that that act caused death and destruction. Perhaps, that would be enough to justify "state" reaction. I'll have to chew on that...

Anyway, I can tell you've struggled with this since you don't typically take such a finite or absolute approach at solutions.

OurCrazyModern -

???

I've just been trying to point out that with so much agreement around about the major issue, it's silly to take offense at how we express our convergent thinking. My last post was to follow (^^) from roachboy's, but I was too slow composing. The idiot is me.

:lol: Oh! Well, it's not to late to edit it and make me look less of an idiot. :)

well, it was early in the morning and i had just been called pol pot again.

I think I agree with you 100%.

I noticed a news article this morning quoting some Iranian politician stating the reason they were suddenly asking for 500k to release the poor girl they're holding as a spy was because of the Quran burning issue.

Dumb ass people do dumb ass things... how or why that becomes news is beyond me. But some poor chick is sitting in Iranian jail right now in part due to this BS.

---------- Post added at 12:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:06 PM ----------

I kind of know how you feel. I got called a "nigger" early one morning and it really started my day off wrong. I kept think "Damn, really? Because I don't even tan well."

cimmaron--i agree with you about the problem of the soft media coverage. and comrade terry was able to play the retro-media game all too well. for this sort of thing not to be so easy you'd have to have a dominant media in the context of which journalism rather than advertising sales was paramount.

i would prefer a press that in the main simply laughed at conservatives like pastor terry. or ignored him because he's so obviously a self-promoting moron that there's no reason to give him press. i would imagine alot of sane conservatives would prefer that too, because in the end its they who get associated with him. in fact, you'd think most people would prefer that. so how did it come to pass that the situation is so otherwise?

Yeah, I noticed that too.:) And don't pick a fight with an idealogue. You'll just get transmogrified into a racist and a fascist for your trouble.:shakehead:

You must be exceptionally perceptive.:) I'm nearly 34 years old, and no one else has ever noticed.:) That I was a racist.:) A fascist.:) Or an idiot.:) They usually notice my tits.:)
Be that as it may, I will again ask just what you meant by the "total suppression" of the Rev. Nitwit Jones' congregation? Put it in whatever "context" that you want. In roachboy's best of all possible worlds do racists, fascists, and nitwit stupid folk have no rights at all?

Lindy
First they came for the ultra-rightwing christian zealots and I did not speak out because I was not...

i'm bored with you, lindy dear.

your pal,

pol pot

Freedom isn't always easy. Think about it, it's nothing to support freedom of speech when the expression is something you agree with, the real challenge lies in being able to support those same rights for those you despise...and it isn't always easy but I don't see how the right could survive otherwise.

I don't really like slippery slope arguments either but I do think it applies to some extent here. If we support outlawing controversial expressions how can we then complain and demand our rights be supported when the political winds shift and suddenly our own ideologies are controversial and unpopular?

rb-

I believe the decline of our free press was born on the day CNN started. If I recall, they were the first 24/7 news agency. The need to create 24 hours worth of news every day is the overwhelming drive. I didn't use "create" by accident. The media can no longer make the distinction between "events" and "news" because they have too much time to fill. Frankly, there isn't really enough going on (even on the planet) to fill 24 hours of news on a channel.

Hence, the dawn of the opinion shows on those channels. One hour of dissecting the limited news and describing how we should all react to that news -followed by another hour of dissection by a different person. Of course, these opinion people also justify why this event is important enough to us to become news - enter Terry Jones.

In my opinion, this 24/7 news phenomenon is when the "duty" of reporting the news for T.V. (but you only have a half hour so pick the important stuff) morphed into an "opportunity" to make money by tuning the news to maximize profit.

I think I could tie the recent dysfunction of our federal government back to this as well, but I don't think I need to. I think we can all agree that the media plays an overwhelming role in the Federal government's behavior.

24/7 cable "news" is a problem, maybe the driver, certainly *a* driver.
the tabloidization of news, the rise of infotainment, is also linked strongly to the rupert murdoch mode of operation, which didn't spring into being full-blown from his head with faux news. and of course the generalization of an utterly commercial ideology which overrode older quaint practices like journalistic integrity. and the rise of the net with the accompanying financial pressures on newspapers. which did the thing that capitalism in the real world does, which is to concentrate. ownership of papers on the one hand, centralization of infotainment in wire services and such on the other. that was one of the many problems with the fraudulent 2000 election, really: beneath the apparent diversity of networks it turned out that everyone was buying exit poll data from the same firm. so the same mistake turned up everywhere. bad for bidness, dontcha know. because political legitimacy is a commodity too these days. that great logic of everything being a commodity---it works wonders. there's no way to really withdraw consent, but there's also no way to actually exercise it. so there's an authoritarian information system that committed to generating and maintaining different types of churn amongst audiences. or something. movement is conflated with political freedom. if you believe in markets and all that capitalist nonsense, you have no perspective from which to say anything. you just notice that something strange has happened. because you have no critical viewpoint on the commodity form. it's nature. this is why i am not a libertarian. well that and ayn rand. dreadful writer. but i digress.

so everything is about advertising delivery and it seems that on the opposite tip local television infotainment delivery systems have long been about that with their if-it-bleeds-it-leads approach to pretty much everything. i remember living in the endless beige nightmare of southern new jersey and working in philadelphia for a while. when i would get home, local tv news would be on and it would busily frame philly as a war zone and i had just come from there and it didn't seem like much of a war zone but hey what did i know i was merely living and working in the place in a way that was not about the creation of dramatic story arcs that open up space for teasers and keep viewers glued to their couches both waiting to hear more and congratulating themselves on their good sense and credit rating which converge on their suburban living rooms, both real and imagined.

another element maybe is the "lessons" that the thatcher/reagan reactionaries took from vietnam. well there were two, yes: no draft and pool the press. so control infotainment flows because remember the war in everyone's living room. of course the conservative "lesson" in this respect is insane in that it presupposes that the war in vietnam was somehow legitimate and what accounts for the massive dissent was (a) yucky images on tv and (b) the draft. as it turns out, they mighta been right about (b). actually now i think about it, the other thing that the right learned was to change the nature of repression and try to steer away from on-camera confrontations between the state and citizens during things like protests. so control of information. like those fabulous private corporations do it. to hell with this public's right to know stuff. that's just bad business. and besides, as long as people keep buying stuff we know the system is working. and politics is just another commodity. democracy is the fact of churn. and this is a little view of how authoritarian infotainment streams operate. note how meaningless the state/private distinction is in it all. it's always been meaningless. that's another reason i'm not a libertarian. well that and ayn rand. but i digress.

I know. As a TFP officially branded racist and fascist I was guilty of espousing the long held racist and fascist belief the even the least of us and the worst of us have rights.:)
In your dreams.:)
My condescending and patronizing pal ("lindy dear," indeed) apparently didn't like the idea that a mere woman would take exception to one of his rants.
And I'm still curious just what is meant by "total suppression" of Rev. Nitwit Jones' congregation. Perhaps someone else would care to hazard a guess?

Lindy

Buried under an avalanche of Lucky Charms cereal?
That seems reasonable to me.

I meant to add this earlier:

So I spoke to my best friend specifically about this issue and the NYC Mosque. He's a Turk, whose father is Turkish millitary - so his view is going to be rather secular, if that makes any sense.

His take on this was basically: this guy is a troll. While he finds it disrespectful and against the golden rule, what's one going to do? He went on to say 1.5 billion people are muslim, and this guy takes the 1.5 percent of those people who are extremists and casts that cloud upon all 1.5B. He was going to take the high road and not cast this guy's cloud upon the rest of Christians.

As for the mosque, his take was "don't build it": He thought it was picking a fight, not building a bridge.

While he and I discuss religion and politics all the time, we rarely discuss religion in politics.

So, it seems this thread must be resurrected. The preacher in question, Jones, may very well be banned from travel to Britian. It seems the Interior Minister may not allow him to enter their country.

Pastor Who Threatened to Burn Koran Might Be Barred From Entering U.K. - FoxNews.com

While I stick to the assertion that this man has the right to be an idiot, I am also gleeful that some negative consequences will come of it. What I find interesting about this, is that he is being banned for threatening to burn the koran, not actually burning it.

So, it seems, he achieved all the attention he wanted and, in his mind, will also get the "martyrdom status of being banned from Britian over a free speech issue" - and he didn't actually perform the act. Having witnessed the my fair share of street preacher antics over the years, I can't help but wonder whether he ever intended on following through, or whether the buildup was the stunt?

H. Q. wrote:
Let's say I'm Christian (or Jewish, or Muslim, or a patriot) and someone burns a copy of the Bible (or the Torah, or the Koran, or the flag).
Unless the copy burned is MY copy, how is this my concern?

-

To most sane and rational people it shouldn't be, but to some who are more fanatic everything about their belief is sacred and they demand that everyone else show respect for it even though they disrespect the religion of others. I had actually thought of gathering a bunch of Bibles and burning them in protest of this churches plans. _________________


FYI I spoke to my pastor and we agreed that burning was the proper way to dispose of old, worn out Bibles, but I wasn't going to tell the press that.